‘Homeland’ Has Become Anti-American And Pro-Terrorist

The Federalist

"Showtime’s ‘Homeland’ has gone from a natural concern for protecting Americans’ safety to making apologies for America’s enemies."

“ 'Homeland” has lost its way and become intensely anti-American, anti-Israel, pro-terrorist. Is this surprising? No. Disappointing? Yes.

"The new season opens during the transition period between the presidential election and the inauguration. The writers and producers clearly expected a Hillary Clinton win: the president-elect is a female with liberal views about Islam, Israel, U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, and the inner-workings of the intelligence community. While this alone caused me to flinch, it also brought a smile to my face with a moment of silent gloating.

That smile had turned into a scowl by episode five, as the show devolved into something the most ardent leftist would be proud of. In the span of five episodes, Carrie Mathison has become a dedicated First Amendment mouthpiece for those who spread the hateful, murderous message of jihad throughout social media. She has also taken on the role as strategist for Hillary—er, Elizabeth Keane, working behind the scenes to subvert the efforts of the CIA.

Saul Berenson Is a Shell of His Former Self

"Sadly yet similarly, Saul Berenson has become a shell of his former self. He is now disillusioned with the CIA, Israel, and the war on terror. His focus instead seems to be on this idea that if we give Iran nuclear capabilities they will become our ally in the Middle East, refrain from building nuclear weapons, leave Israel in peace, and use the technology and money instead to better the lives of their people." . . .

Mandy Patinkin, pictured above at left and below, discusses "Muslim 'Fear': White Men in Gov't, Military Are the Problem".

MSNBC contributor deletes horrifying tweet

Thomas Lifson

. . . "I am trying to figure out how a rational grown-up could tweet such a thing and not expect it to be seen for what it obviously is: targeting a Trump building for bombing. Is he so self-righteously convinced of his own virtue that he thought it was clear that he was being ironic?

"People on the Left are always congratulating each other on their superior virtue. (This is why they need conservatives to be evil.) So they end up thinking of themselves as above reproach."

"This really could be the end for Bill O'Reilly at Fox News"

Baltimore Sun  . . . "I have long admired Bill O'Reilly as a TV performer. I once wrote that he was to the cable news genre what Johnny Carson was to late night — so at ease and skilled in the format that he looked as if he invented it. He's still the ratings king.

"But when it comes to O'Reilly, the man, questions raised about his reporting career and the millions he and Fox have paid in settlements with women who have accused him of sexual harassment have reached a tipping point and then some for me.

"Now when I come across him on screen, the only thing that comes to mind is the sick, sexist and predatory culture that is eating like a cancer at Fox News. The 67-year-old O'Reilly, who once told me how much he hated hypocrisy during an appearance on his show, has become one of the media's most disgusting hypocrites in my eyes. It would be sad if this is how he ended his groundbreaking career." . . .   David Zurawik

Much more on the columns of Mr. Zurawik here.

How late-night comics helped pave the way for President Trump

Volokh Conspiracy  "Late-night comedy is more political than ever. It both reflects and influences our politics, but not always in the ways its hosts and producers intend. 

"In the Atlantic, Caitlin Flanagan has an exceptionally perceptive (if also dispiriting) essay on how the increasingly shrill, partisan and cruel smugness of late-night comedy helped fuel the cultural resentments that facilitated Donald Trump’s victory last fall." . . .

Though aimed at blue-state sophisticates, these shows are an unintended but powerful form of propaganda for conservatives. When

Republicans see these harsh jokes—which echo down through the morning news shows and the chattering day’s worth of viral clips, along with those of Jimmy Kimmel, Stephen Colbert, and Seth Meyers—they don’t just see a handful of comics mocking them. They see HBO, Comedy Central, TBS, ABC, CBS, and NBC. In other words, they see exactly what Donald Trump has taught them: that the entire media landscape loathes them, their values, their family, and their religion. It is hardly a reach for them to further imagine that the legitimate news shows on these channels are run by similarly partisan players—nor is it at all illogical.

Full article

Honeymoon from Hell: The Liberal Media vs. President Trump

Media Research Center

"As President Trump approaches the end of his first 100 days in office, he has received by far the most hostile press treatment of any incoming American president, with the broadcast networks punishing him with coverage that has been 89% negative. The networks largely ignored important national priorities such as jobs and the fight against ISIS, in favor of a news agenda that has been dominated by anti-Trump controversies and which closely matches what would be expected from an opposition party.

"For example, President Trump’s push to invigorate the economy and bring back American jobs received a mere 18 minutes of coverage (less than one percent of all airtime devoted to the administration), while his moves to renegotiate various international trade deals resulted in less than 10 minutes of TV news airtime.

Much, much more ObaLove at Pinterest

As many of us saw Obama:

"Eight years ago, in contrast, the broadcast networks rewarded new President Barack Obama with mainly positive spin, and spent hundreds of stories discussing the economic agenda of the incoming liberal administration." . . .

Pentagon Considers Shooting Down North Korea Missile Tests

Zero Hedge

. . . "Both sources said the military was not looking to use the high-profile missile-defense system the US is providing to South Korea, the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (Thaad). Thaad’s 200km range and sophisticated radar have unnerved China, whose president, Xi Jinping, has been coaxed by Trump into pressuring North Korea. 

"In the past, several US administrations have considered shooting down North Korean missile tests, only to turn away from the option when considering the consequences of escalation against an unpredictable and bellicose adversary. Rumors have circulated since Trump took office that he has been mulling a shoot-down. A US official said the military was discussing a potential shoot-down ahead of Trump’s meeting with Xi on 6 April at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida. The discussion also preceded Friday’s North Korean military parade, during which Pyongyang displayed advancements in its intercontinental ballistic missile program and anti-ship missiles, as well as a test-launch failure on Saturday. Senior Pentagon officials pondering the shoot-down option are said to have conceded they are unsure how North Korea would respond, especially considering North Korea's comments...

"If the U.S. is reckless enough to use military means, from that very day, there will be all out war. Our nuclear weapons protect us from that threat," Vice Foreign Minister Han Song-Ryol told the BBC's John Sudworth. "We'll be conducting more missile tests on a weekly, monthly and yearly basis," he threatened. He said that an "all-out war" would result if the US took military action.

"Neither Pentagon nor US Pacific Command representatives responded to a request for comment. Another factor complicating a shoot-down would be the risk of embarrassment should Aegis interceptors miss a North Korean target, which might embolden Pyongyang and unnerve US regional allies.

"Ken Gause, director of the international-affairs group at the CNA thinktank influential with the Pentagon, said US planners have grown frustrated with coercive diplomacy amid North Korea’s maturing nuclear and missile capability. But Gause said that while Washington might spin a shoot-down as a step below an attack on North Korea or an attempt to overthrow its government, it risked validating Kim’s position that North Korea needs nuclear weapons and long-range missiles to respond to American aggression." . . .

Hollywood Boldly Takes on Trump Era...And it looks as terrible as you’d imagine

If the trailer is any indication of the film as a whole, it’s perfectly illustrative of the Hollywood bubble and their perception of somewhat right-leaning Americans. The evil, white businessman, ignorant to the ways of the little people, feelings, and everything else humane, must be taught a lesson via public humiliation so as to correct his wrong thinking.

Legal Insurrection

. . . "The plotline of the dramatic comedy has been described thusly:

Beatriz (Salma Hayek), an immigrant from a poor town in Mexico, has drawn on her innate kindness to build a career as a health practitioner in Los Angeles. Doug Strutt (John Lithgow) is a cutthroat, self-satisfied billionaire. When these two opposites meet at a dinner party, their worlds collide and neither will ever be the same.

"Sounds riveting, doesn’t it?

"In the official trailer, Lithgow’s character (who owns hotels) first meets Hayek at a dinner party where mistaking her for the help, he asks her for another bourbon. During the dinner toast, Lithgow interrupts Hayek to ask her if she came to the U.S. legally. Later, Lithgow boldly proclaims what America really needs is more jobs, drawing a direct parallel to Trump’s campaign messaging. Several cuts praise Hayek’s character, calling her a “saint.”

"If that’s not ridiculous enough for you, there’s more! Bragging about shooting a rhino, Lithgow passes around his phone, on which is pulled up a photo of himself behind his dead trophy. Hayek throws the phone at him saying, “you think it’s funny?! I think it’s sick!” as she storms off."

The tragic state of American campuses.

The Least Diverse Place in America

Prager University

Sharyl Atkisson: Obama-era Surveillance Timeline

Sharyl Attkisson  "You can find many timelines that follow allegations of Russia tampering in the U.S. election and alleged involvement of Trump officials. But I couldn’t find any comprehensive timelines cross-referencing Obama-era surveillance of whistleblowers, journalists and other U.S. citizens with Russia surveillance allegations. 

"So I built one. Please note: temporal proximity of events doesn’t necessarily imply a connection." . . .

"January 21, 2009:  President Obama takes office; pledges unprecedented transparency."  . . . 

September 21, 2010: "Internal email entitled “Obama Leak Investigations” at “global intelligence” company Stratfor claims Obama’s then-Homeland Security adviser John Brennan is targeting journalists.

“Brennan is behind the witch hunts of investigative journalists learning information from inside the beltway sources,” writes one Stratfor official to another.

"The email continues: “Note — There is specific tasker from the [White House] to go after anyone printing materials negative to the Obama agenda (oh my.) Even the FBI is shocked. The Wonder Boys must be in meltdown mode…' ”

“The Wonder Boys” reportedly refers to the National Security Agency (NSA). Brennan later becomes President Obama’s CIA Director." . . .

March 2, 2017: In an interview on MSNBC, Obama Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Evelyn Farkas says that once President Trump was elected, she urged her former colleagues to “get as much information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can [about Trump and his associates] before President Obama leaves the administration” and get it to “people on Capitol Hill.”

Then there is Ms. Attkisson's book just available:
The Smear: How Shady Political Operatives and Fake News Control What You See, What You Think, and How You Vote  . . . "Attkisson exposes the diabolical tactics of Smear artists, and their outrageous access to the biggest names in political media—operatives who are corrupting the political process, and discouraging widespread citizen involvement in our democracy." . . .

Trump juggles the foreign policy balls Obama dropped

"By the time Obama left office this January, America’s official words meant almost nothing. Take, for instance, Obama’s declaration in 2013 of a “red line” over the use of chemical weapons in Syria. That gave way to former Secretary of State John Kerry’s Lilliputian assurance that an American strike on Syria’s chemical weapons facilities would be “unbelievably small.' ”

The Hill  "The Trump administration is taking heat for striking a Syrian air base with Tomahawk missiles and hitting ISIS terrorists in Afghanistan with a MOAB, a conventional bomb so big that it has been dubbed the “Mother of All Bombs.” No doubt there are useful debates to be had about the pros and cons, both tactical and juridical. But one sure upside of these strikes is that they are a step toward restoring abroad the credibility of America as a power to be reckoned with. 

"That’s big, in ways that go way beyond the immediate battlefields. In a world grown dramatically more dangerous during President Obama’s eight years of appeasement and retreat, America badly and urgently needs to restore its lost credibility.

"It would be great if diplomats could protect America, its allies and its interests with words alone. But in matters involving aggressive tyrannies, words don’t mean much unless they are backed up by military muscle and the credible willingness to use force. When that threat goes missing, predators take notice." . . .

Fecklessness made manifest:

The rolling debacle in Syria has been just part of a ruinous global trajectory that began with Obama’s 2009 Russia “reset.” This included, in deference to Putin, America welshing on its promise of missile defense for Eastern Europe. When that became an issue in America’s 2012 presidential election campaign, Obama was caught on an open microphone promising Putin that after his reelection he’d have “more flexibility.”

Claudia Rosett is foreign-policy fellow with the Independent Women’s Forum, and blogs at PJMedia.com. Follow her on Twitter @CRosett.

This Is the Best Parody of an Ancestry.com Ad with Elizabeth Warren!

PJ Media  "Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) made the claim that she's of Native American ancestry and used it to gain admission to college and preferential treatment throughout much of her life. Most fact checkers seem to say her claim is either untrue or blows a very minor statistic out of proportion. During the campaign, Donald Trump nicknamed her "Pocahontas." Well there's an Ancestry.com ad depicting a woman saying that she discovered she's "26 percent Native American." Watch this Media Research Council parody of this ad..."

The Latest Leftist Tactic To Push Political Correctness In Schools? Rewriting Fairy Tales!

Chicks On The Right

"If the Cult of Social Justice was 100% honest with what they wanted society to look like, they would be laughed out of town. The sad thing is, they know it. So, they have to resort to underhanded tactics to make their insane messages more palatable for the general populace – particularly kids.

"Case in point.

"According to that sourcelink, there is a push from a radical social justice group in Australia to turn a program for schools meant to teach about “Respectful Relationships” into some insane brainwashing curriculum about social justice, gender theory, wealth redistribution, and any other insane leftist cause you care to name.

The ideologues in the state government prefer to replace traditional fairytales with a new PC form of fiction; radical gender theory.

The Safe Schools and the Resilience, Rights and Respectful Relationships programs have wonderfully benevolent names and supposedly noble intentions but are nothing more than indoctrination by stealth.

At best they are simplistic gibberish that distract schools from fulfilling their primary objective — the traditional three Rs of writing, reading and arithmetic — and at worst they are destructive programs that seek to brainwash young minds with contentious theories.